starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
Forum:Lore and gameplay article split
I guess this is why we have a forum! (Keeping track of the discussion going on concurrently on three different talk pages makes me woozy. 0.o) It seems there are two issues: #How many gameplay articles are needed for each unit (a matter of content quantity) #What should go in the gameplay articles (obvious official stuff vs. fan developed) On (1), each unit that appears in multiplayer should get at least one gameplay article (eg. "SomeUnit (gameplay)", or if its only in SC1 then just go straight for "SomeUnit (StarCraft)"), and possibly one per game if there really is that much. In the case of the single article linking should still be through "SomeUnit (StarCraft)" and "SomeUnit (StarCraft II)", with those pages being redirects to the specific section in "SomeUnit (gameplay)". On (2), obvious/official and fan generated should go into the gameplay articles. With the links at the top of the lore articles, it's easier to put everything in one place rather than have the user browse down the lore article to the "appearances" section to get some stuff and then go to the gameplay article. :Meco 08:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC) For 1) If we're using "base pages are lore pages" and not using disambiguation pages, I would suggest using a colorful attention-grabbing template (a wide one) at the top of each unit page directing visitors to the associated strategy pages with only one click. I'm thinking either red or blue would make a good attention-grabbing background, but both might be harder to read. Maybe a black background would work well – we'd have to use the link-color-changing template though. Kimera 757 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Maybe a better solution is to use "protoss yellow" as black text is probably easier to read. Kimera 757 (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC) For 2) When it comes to strategy articles, it's really impossible to write them without stating opinions (eg unofficial/fan generated content). Anything from a build to even a strategy name is probably an opinion. I'm going to check if WoWWiki has specific policies for these areas, but I do note that their strategy sections have lots of opinions. For the moment (as has been discussed on various user pages) we shouldn't allow user-generated content for StarCraft II gameplay sections. On another note, while the StarCraft II unit articles are too short to be split at the moment, that'll probably happen later. We might as well start using the link templates for them, and just have article names like "roach (StarCraft II gameplay)" redirect to the roach page for now. That'll save time for when the game actually comes out. Kimera 757 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Maybe a front page poll? Klomer 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC) For 1) At least one gameplay article should be included for each unit that appears in multiplayer. If a unit appears in both SCI and SCII, that's another matter. Some units, such as the marine and zealot, have had their usual companion units changed. Others, such as the workers, would essentially remain the same. In the event of having one article per game appearance however, I'd at least wait until the StarCraft Beta comes out. For 2) I think the "base" articles can be a mix of lore and base gameplay, the latter being facts. In the case of SCII, these facts come from numerous Blizzard statements, battle reports, etc. and in the case of SCI, come from the obvious and the strategy pages on battle.net, which give Blizzard's strategies for units. For the gameplay pages, I think more emphasis should be put on user content. The facts can be kept to their own section (probably marked as "Official Strategies") and the lower sections used for users. A template would be at the top of the article, emphasising user-generated content, but how it is not official strategy. As such, the general article gives us lore and basic gameplay and is purely canon, while special articles give us user content. I agree with the template at the top of the page, and that with each Level 3 game unit section, a "for a more in-depth analysis of unit tactics, see here'', the link going to the relative game link. A poll may be a good idea, but we have to agree on set options first.--Hawki 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Edit: Concerning the big template, I think it could go as: *This article gives general game and lore information for the (unit name filled out). *For an in-depth look at (unit) strategies in StarCraft, see here. *For an -indepth look at (unit) strageies in StarCraft II, see here. Both "here" link lead to the respective gameplay pages.--Hawki 21:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC) If there are other (older) points, they can still be copied/moved to here. Kimera 757 (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Klomer's points Klomer here --- Interesting idea and you've got me thinking. I love the discussion. Predictably, I'm hesitant to treat the strategic information as less valuable then the rules. I'm not clear on usage patterns, but from my (strategy) perspective the traffic coming to the wiki is coming to understand how to play the game well, so having that information hidden behind links makes those users dismiss the site as not useful (as I did the first few times I came here). Most people will get the basic information from blizzard's site - the main reason to come here is that battle.net is strategically badly out of date and even misleading. So it seems like we should put that in easy reach. Personally, I don't find there to be a lot of debate about StarCraft 1 strategy. I realize that's not intuitive. But it's why the citations of actual examples are even more valuable for strategy - to both cite proven knowledge and teach how to replicate the play. The builds and unit strategies are well known and regularly demonstrated in tournament games amongst hundreds of players, which we cite. The basic StarCraft 1 play is very predictable and well understood - watching X top games, the vast majority have one do A, sometimes B, rarely C. There is an ideal. The variety of play comes more from maps and variations in player skill (which strategies they are better at. This is part of why SC is the awesomest game ever* ™ - it has a level of well understood, proven play to achieve yet a meta-game that encourages risk and exploration things alongside training and preparation. There could well be debate about what lower tier players should do, and we could offer advice on that. I agree Hawki that that should be on a different page is more ambiguous. What is better for one learning player (like me!), though, will depend largely on what their not pro at, and so be more subjective. Klomer 04:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Continuing It looks like we're more or less on the same page on (1) (split as needed, make links for SC2 now, but no SC2 pages yet) and the template. That leaves (2). Option 1 is to have official strategy on the lore page and fan stuff on the gameplay pages. Option 2 is to put it all in the gameplay pages. If PSH, Klomer, and perhaps Omega20‎ would point to which one they prefer (or propose other alternatives) we can get that sorted ASAP. Meco 15:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Fan stuff should only go on the gameplay pages. I think we should put at least a bit of official strategy on the main/lore pages. (We could at least put the ability templates on the main page, and repeat them again on the strategy pages, with more details on how to use them, fan or not. Good thing you made those ability templates Meco!) So for 2, I'm voting option 1. Kimera 757 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Ditto, I'm for option 1. Official strategy should stay in the core pages, but can probably be ported over to the gameplay page as necessity dictates.--Hawki 21:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Looks like option (1) is it. I'll get around to revising the policies sometime this week when I get time (end of holiday break and back to the grind, oh noes!) Meco 02:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC) When the unit pages get gameplay info before splits... I don't think we should erase that info. That might drive away more strategy contributors before the wiki is transformed. I think we should either store the info, or quickly make a gameplay page. Kimera 757 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC) I think we can give the green light to start creating the gameplay articles and redirects, so that Klomer can start using the link template at least. Meco 02:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Appearance of the Templates I was originally thinking several colors, settling on dark yellow. However, it occurs to me that the StarCraft and StarCraft II links should be different colors. (I figure there would be one template for each, and they can be stacked on top of each other if the unit is available in both StarCraft I and StarCraft II). Right now though, we only really need to focus on StarCraft I though... I think. Kimera 757 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC) :I've dabbled in making the lore-to-gameplay box (see the test incarnation: UserWiki:Meco/Template:Lore.) It's based on Hawki's recommendation for a single box. If it looks like something we can all live with, we can continue hacking away at it. Meco 18:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC) That looks good. I think it could be a bit wider though (eg typical article width), unless that would cause problems. Kimera 757 (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC) :The box is now full width. If there are no other big suggestions I think we can start using it and base the gameplay-to-lore box on it. Meco 02:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Yes, it looks ready to go. Kimera 757 (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Categorization I think we'll need to recategorize some of the gameplay pages. Right now, there's nothing keeping StarCraft I-only strategies apart from StarCraft II-only strategies. That can be done bit by bit, I think. Kimera 757 (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Infested Terran and Dark Templar unit pages The former should be easy to fix. All of the infested terran (unit) links can be converted into infested terran (StarCraft) pages. (As a short term fix, we can simply redirect infested terran (unit) to infested terran (StarCraft). Fixing dark templar (unit) becomes thornier, since a few of those links might be meant for StarCraft II (there's not enough info for that article yet, though we could just make it a stub). Kimera 757 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)